2025:JHHC:36177 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4721 of 2015 Lalan Kumar, Son of Shri Bhubneshwar Prasad, Resident of Latehar, P.O. Latehar, P.S. Latehar, District-Latehar, at present working as Circle Officer, Latehar. ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Personal, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. The Joint Secretary, Personal, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 4.The Deputy Secretary, Personal, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. ... … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) :Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, AC to Sr. SC-I -------- Order No.11 /Dated: 2nd December 2025 Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, namely, Lalan Kumar, has taken back the entire brief from the advocate on record. 2. From record it appears that no further Vakalatnama has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that looking to the prayer made in this writ application it appears that the petitioner has lost interest in this case as such the instant writ application may be dismissed. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances and after hearing learned counsel for the respondents it appears that the instant writ application was preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondents to issue appropriate direction to change the conducting officer in place of Smt. Shila Kisku Rapaz to other conducting officer for 2025:JHHC:36177 2 conducting the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner. From record it appears that no final order was passed till filing of the writ application. Thereafter also there is no application praying for amendment in the main application. All these facts suggest that the petitioner has lost interest in this case. 5. Accordingly, the instant writ application is dismissed for non-prosecution. 6. Pending I.As, if any, also stand disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 2nd December, 2025 Amit Uploaded on 6/12/2025